The NAS Debate: Other Opinions
Prof. Airport Engineer
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Australia (mostly)
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JohnVoR and Dick,
Can I offer you both my sincerest enthusiasm and encouragement to continue with the debate.
The time required of you is massive, the demand on you huge, and the outcome is priceless. The hours demanded of you to write the many words that you both have contributed are simply immense. Let me openly enunciate the value of both your contributions, and my appreciation of the effort you have both made.
The debate is being followed intensely by very many people, including Airservices, CASA, RAAF, every airline in Australia, pilots, controllers and every other player in Australia and abroad. For want of anything else, PPRUNE has become the defacto forum of Australian airspace reform, and this has become the pivotal debate.
Please continue. Although the demands that this places on you both are onerous, the contribution that is being made to aviation matches the inputs you are making.
Can I offer you both my sincerest enthusiasm and encouragement to continue with the debate.
The time required of you is massive, the demand on you huge, and the outcome is priceless. The hours demanded of you to write the many words that you both have contributed are simply immense. Let me openly enunciate the value of both your contributions, and my appreciation of the effort you have both made.
The debate is being followed intensely by very many people, including Airservices, CASA, RAAF, every airline in Australia, pilots, controllers and every other player in Australia and abroad. For want of anything else, PPRUNE has become the defacto forum of Australian airspace reform, and this has become the pivotal debate.
Please continue. Although the demands that this places on you both are onerous, the contribution that is being made to aviation matches the inputs you are making.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BROOME TOWER
Dick,
Your statements on a D class tower for Broome International airport provide clarity to the on going debate NAS debate.
You pick and choose from agencies, documents and individual statements the parts you want-yet then criticise and discard the same sources when they fail to support your ideas.
You state I Dick Smith will get a D Class Tower at BME just you wait and see.
There for all to see is the problem with NAS and your influence.
No requirement of a study,no reference to Australian Standards and criteria, no consultation with users, no historical examination of incidents,no comparision with similar USA airports, no calculation using the FAA D Class tower selection criteria.
Why a tower? It is simple I Dick Smith "think" and have now decided BME shall have a tower!!!
Dick, let me give you a tip. BME will have a tower when a Design Aeronautical Study by appropriately qualified professionals using a proven analytical system either AUS,FAA or ICAO says it is needed and CASA, following industry consultation, confirms the findings and AsA agree on how it will be introduced.
Then and only then will the aviation industry need to bear the costs of establishng and operating the tower and the GA aircraft based at or operating into BME need to bear the expense of equiping their a/c with transponders. While we the owners will close down the loss making CAGRS service and retrain and redeploy our CAGROs to other duties most likely being tower ATC.
This is how you change a small but crucial part of an airspace system. It is not your decision, nor: mine,the BIA board, the CEOs,the Arport managers or the Ministers.
The proven system requirements of the BME Terminal Airspace makes the decision and the responsibile airport owner, airlines, aviation users and Authorities task is to impliment the required change in a cost effective planned transparent and orderly manner.
What you or I, think or wish, is irrelevant. If the recent BME DAS had concluded a tower was needed we would have advised CASA and AsA and the industry and set the process in motion without delay.
If NAS had followed this methodology all the angst and vitriol and errors would not have occured, opposing views would be forced to be based on data and analysis as this is the only way to effectively counter a studied informed consultative decision. Prove it wrong or in need of revision by concerted analysed studied argument.
Sure it takes longer but it is safer and more cost efficient and takes the majority of industry with you.
Rember in God we trust all others, including Dick, must have Data.
Cheers Mike Caplehorn
Chairman BIA Group
Your statements on a D class tower for Broome International airport provide clarity to the on going debate NAS debate.
You pick and choose from agencies, documents and individual statements the parts you want-yet then criticise and discard the same sources when they fail to support your ideas.
You state I Dick Smith will get a D Class Tower at BME just you wait and see.
There for all to see is the problem with NAS and your influence.
No requirement of a study,no reference to Australian Standards and criteria, no consultation with users, no historical examination of incidents,no comparision with similar USA airports, no calculation using the FAA D Class tower selection criteria.
Why a tower? It is simple I Dick Smith "think" and have now decided BME shall have a tower!!!
Dick, let me give you a tip. BME will have a tower when a Design Aeronautical Study by appropriately qualified professionals using a proven analytical system either AUS,FAA or ICAO says it is needed and CASA, following industry consultation, confirms the findings and AsA agree on how it will be introduced.
Then and only then will the aviation industry need to bear the costs of establishng and operating the tower and the GA aircraft based at or operating into BME need to bear the expense of equiping their a/c with transponders. While we the owners will close down the loss making CAGRS service and retrain and redeploy our CAGROs to other duties most likely being tower ATC.
This is how you change a small but crucial part of an airspace system. It is not your decision, nor: mine,the BIA board, the CEOs,the Arport managers or the Ministers.
The proven system requirements of the BME Terminal Airspace makes the decision and the responsibile airport owner, airlines, aviation users and Authorities task is to impliment the required change in a cost effective planned transparent and orderly manner.
What you or I, think or wish, is irrelevant. If the recent BME DAS had concluded a tower was needed we would have advised CASA and AsA and the industry and set the process in motion without delay.
If NAS had followed this methodology all the angst and vitriol and errors would not have occured, opposing views would be forced to be based on data and analysis as this is the only way to effectively counter a studied informed consultative decision. Prove it wrong or in need of revision by concerted analysed studied argument.
Sure it takes longer but it is safer and more cost efficient and takes the majority of industry with you.
Rember in God we trust all others, including Dick, must have Data.
Cheers Mike Caplehorn
Chairman BIA Group
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If there is any sort of scorecard being kept on this debate, I think VoR has gotten off to a great start and is publicly whiteanting Dick's platform with great aplomb and in a very professional manner. Dick meanwhile, is tearing himself to pieces trying to work out the identity of the person/s he is debating. Jousting at windmills?
(Might be about time for Dick to cease responding to VoR and open another thread where he can control the topic for a while.)
(Might be about time for Dick to cease responding to VoR and open another thread where he can control the topic for a while.)
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
It is a credit to Dick Smith that he has taken the time to respond to this debate, in which many of us Australian pilots - professional, sport, leisure, and student - have a profound interest in seeing FULLY discussed.
Imho, VoR presents a well-disciplined, reasoned, logical, and knowledgeable argument based upon FACTS.
Dick Smith appears to me, to base much of his argument on his own personal experience, and how he THINKS/BELIEVES the system could be improved based loosely upon the North American system.
It's a pity to see Dick Smith become obsessed with trying to prove that VoR is Adrian Dumsa - something that both have denied.
Even if it WERE correct though, VoR uses FACTS relevant to the debate, versus personal attack to discredit Dick Smith.
Please try to stick to the ISSUE, Dick, by playing the ball and not the man (whom you think VoR is).
You'll garner far more respect from EVERYONE else, if you will adhere to the core issues, and support your statements with established FACTS.
Thank you both sides.
Imho, VoR presents a well-disciplined, reasoned, logical, and knowledgeable argument based upon FACTS.
Dick Smith appears to me, to base much of his argument on his own personal experience, and how he THINKS/BELIEVES the system could be improved based loosely upon the North American system.
It's a pity to see Dick Smith become obsessed with trying to prove that VoR is Adrian Dumsa - something that both have denied.
Even if it WERE correct though, VoR uses FACTS relevant to the debate, versus personal attack to discredit Dick Smith.
Please try to stick to the ISSUE, Dick, by playing the ball and not the man (whom you think VoR is).
You'll garner far more respect from EVERYONE else, if you will adhere to the core issues, and support your statements with established FACTS.
Thank you both sides.
Last edited by Kaptin M; 19th Jun 2004 at 00:36.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bring it on!
While many of you have complained about Dick Smith's past and even the arguments he brings to these posts...I still need to see more "data" on the contributors before making any decisions.
It seems that Dick Smith and Mr Caplehorn and Mr Dumsa are able to reveal their full identities; why nobody else?
Is it really in the spirit of the Australian safety culture to be frightened to speak up on a national safety concern with fear of reprisaltry action?
Dick Smith has addressed this with concern and it bears considering.
Having flown extensively in The USA, Canada, Central and South America, Australia and New Zealand I can say without question that some of Dick Smith's statements have been correct regarding properly implemented Class E Airspace. When flying out of Sun Valley (Hailey), Idaho, we don't get radar coverage until almost 13,000 feet from Denver Center. Jackson Hole, Wyoming is another one and there are quite a few more I can name. The system is dependent upon "one in and one out", just as many of you have claimed, and is done through tower coordination with a radar Center control facility.
We can do VFR climbs, but that's where Class E Airspace fails miserably. By allowing VFR into IFR with no ATC seperation, nor mandatory communication, we might find ourselves in near collision risks with VFR traffic, even when operating IFR from those airports.
The drought afflicted West and Southwest has sometimes produced the worst bush fires I've ever seen. Visibility can go to about a mile, even in the lower flight levels. There's always some bright spark in a P-210 who insists on not talking to anyone and going VFR in the aforementioned conditions. Last year, after leaving Sun Valley, Idaho, I had the pleasure of nearly hitting one!
Class E airspace does not work without radar monitoring and full traffic participation-period! It never has, and it never will. Class E airspace without radar is merely an extension of an outmoded philosophy of "affordable safety."
I am not keeping score on this issue. The prize is far greater than anyone's pride! This is about stopping the confusion and improving upon the safety of a nation's treasure-it's safe skies.
The Dick Smith bashing simply must stop, if we are to proceed in a functioning dialect that moves us forward towards a solution. If you want the industry to succeed in Australia, you cannot continue to look backwards or even laterally. The airspace in America is fairly safe, I think there is still room for improvement.
What better way for the Americans to learn, than from the leadership of the Australians as we try to find innovative solutions to seperation in remote regions.
Let's get on with it!
It seems that Dick Smith and Mr Caplehorn and Mr Dumsa are able to reveal their full identities; why nobody else?
Is it really in the spirit of the Australian safety culture to be frightened to speak up on a national safety concern with fear of reprisaltry action?
Dick Smith has addressed this with concern and it bears considering.
Having flown extensively in The USA, Canada, Central and South America, Australia and New Zealand I can say without question that some of Dick Smith's statements have been correct regarding properly implemented Class E Airspace. When flying out of Sun Valley (Hailey), Idaho, we don't get radar coverage until almost 13,000 feet from Denver Center. Jackson Hole, Wyoming is another one and there are quite a few more I can name. The system is dependent upon "one in and one out", just as many of you have claimed, and is done through tower coordination with a radar Center control facility.
We can do VFR climbs, but that's where Class E Airspace fails miserably. By allowing VFR into IFR with no ATC seperation, nor mandatory communication, we might find ourselves in near collision risks with VFR traffic, even when operating IFR from those airports.
The drought afflicted West and Southwest has sometimes produced the worst bush fires I've ever seen. Visibility can go to about a mile, even in the lower flight levels. There's always some bright spark in a P-210 who insists on not talking to anyone and going VFR in the aforementioned conditions. Last year, after leaving Sun Valley, Idaho, I had the pleasure of nearly hitting one!
Class E airspace does not work without radar monitoring and full traffic participation-period! It never has, and it never will. Class E airspace without radar is merely an extension of an outmoded philosophy of "affordable safety."
I am not keeping score on this issue. The prize is far greater than anyone's pride! This is about stopping the confusion and improving upon the safety of a nation's treasure-it's safe skies.
The Dick Smith bashing simply must stop, if we are to proceed in a functioning dialect that moves us forward towards a solution. If you want the industry to succeed in Australia, you cannot continue to look backwards or even laterally. The airspace in America is fairly safe, I think there is still room for improvement.
What better way for the Americans to learn, than from the leadership of the Australians as we try to find innovative solutions to seperation in remote regions.
Let's get on with it!
Last edited by Chris Higgins; 19th Jun 2004 at 15:50.
Guest
Posts: n/a
DICK, FOR THE 3RD TIME, ANSWER THE QUESTION
Dick, you say in response to the non mandatory carriage of radio within MBZ/CTAF areas
Quote, “Yes, it is true that I do not support mandatory radio requirements when there is a calling in the blind system because the BASI/ATSB data shows that the result is many thousands of unalerted see and avoid incidents. This is because pilots in this calling in the blind system can have the radio on the wrong frequency, the volume turned down, or the wrong microphone selected. I have always supported mandatory radio requirements where there is a third party to ensure that the radio is working. This is consistent with ICAO.”
Dick if it is true that “many thousands” of see and avoid incidents occur because “pilots in this calling in the blind system can have the radio on the wrong frequency, the volume turned down, or the wrong microphone selected”, how the hell would carriage of a radio make a difference in a “third party environment”. The problem would be the same.
So mate, because your fellow weekend warriors either can not, will not or are too incompetent to adopt correct radio procedures, we drop the whole radio requirement. Your logic is akin to dropping all speed limits on Australian roads because we will never stop drivers from speeding.
Finally, for the THIRD BLOODY TIME, WILL YOU ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS? Don’t you have the guts or is it just that you have no damn idea?
Q1. Exactly how much money has been spent so far on introducing NAS 2b & and the attempted 2c.
Q2. Show us exactly and precisely how the claimed savings of $75,000,000 will be achieved.
Quote, “Yes, it is true that I do not support mandatory radio requirements when there is a calling in the blind system because the BASI/ATSB data shows that the result is many thousands of unalerted see and avoid incidents. This is because pilots in this calling in the blind system can have the radio on the wrong frequency, the volume turned down, or the wrong microphone selected. I have always supported mandatory radio requirements where there is a third party to ensure that the radio is working. This is consistent with ICAO.”
Dick if it is true that “many thousands” of see and avoid incidents occur because “pilots in this calling in the blind system can have the radio on the wrong frequency, the volume turned down, or the wrong microphone selected”, how the hell would carriage of a radio make a difference in a “third party environment”. The problem would be the same.
So mate, because your fellow weekend warriors either can not, will not or are too incompetent to adopt correct radio procedures, we drop the whole radio requirement. Your logic is akin to dropping all speed limits on Australian roads because we will never stop drivers from speeding.
Finally, for the THIRD BLOODY TIME, WILL YOU ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS? Don’t you have the guts or is it just that you have no damn idea?
Q1. Exactly how much money has been spent so far on introducing NAS 2b & and the attempted 2c.
Q2. Show us exactly and precisely how the claimed savings of $75,000,000 will be achieved.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, OverRun and Kaptin M, the debate is a credit to both Dick Smith and Voices of Reason, although both have taken different tacks.
The time taken to prepare their posts must be very significant.
Woomera
The time taken to prepare their posts must be very significant.
Woomera
Chris Higgins
Sadly it is demonstrably so. Those that post on these forums who are very close to the action, can do so because they remain anonymous. Government employees are legally bound under their CA or AWA not to make any public statements. Therefore they risk their career by posting in their own name. This subject has been covered time and time again. Better they post anonymously rather than not at all.
I do not see much Dick bashing. Mostly people attacking his position. However Dick always resorts to playing the man not the ball eg Adrian Dumsa. I would be more than happy to sit and have a beer with Dick but I do not follow the logic of his arguments and I do not see any evidence for what he so strongly believes.
Furthermore we used to have CAIR, which has now been scrapped by the ATSB just as the maritime industry has adopted it. Why would that be?
From your own experience...
So why is one person in Australia pushing so hard for more E airspace and less C airspace when we have such low overall radar coverage?
Is it really in the spirit of the Australian safety culture to be frightened to speak up on a national safety concern with fear of reprisaltry action?
I do not see much Dick bashing. Mostly people attacking his position. However Dick always resorts to playing the man not the ball eg Adrian Dumsa. I would be more than happy to sit and have a beer with Dick but I do not follow the logic of his arguments and I do not see any evidence for what he so strongly believes.
Furthermore we used to have CAIR, which has now been scrapped by the ATSB just as the maritime industry has adopted it. Why would that be?
From your own experience...
We can do VFR climbs, but that's where Class E Airspace fails miserably.
Class E airspace does not work without radar monitoring and full traffic participation-period! It never has, and it never will.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chris Higgins.
You are being a little naive if you think Dick only wants to reveal poster's identities so 'it can be in the Australian culture'.
WHO do you think creates that fear- the poster, or Dick? Take a look at the Broome DAS. Dick's main reply was to attack the integrity of the authors- he even wasted money on getting his own experts to do so. Why would you do that, unless you realise that he couldn't win the argument on the facts, so he has to play the man? It's good politics, but crap airspace management.
As stated by others- if you work for the government, you ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SPEAK PUBLICLY. So what to do? Keep silent, and watch the disaster unfold? Should only rich, powerful, private aircraft owners have input into something that affects EVERYONE?
Class 'E' is specifically non-participatory. The yanks work it differently to ICAO- and that is part of the problem here. The yanks realise that the problems arise when you mix small slow a/c with faster, bigger ones. They mitigate using radar- but it doesn't specifically say that anywhere, they just do. And the one in- one out system; explain that using 'the rules'! It's more restrictive than what happens in oz, and is the type of airspace that oz has lots MORE OF. The pre- Nov 27 airspace was much better at handling those sorts of movements. Dick doesn't understand that.
The yanks have 'evolved' their airspace, and it is not something you can just 'transplant'. Dick just doesn't get that.
You are being a little naive if you think Dick only wants to reveal poster's identities so 'it can be in the Australian culture'.
Is it really in the spirit of the Australian safety culture to be frightened to speak up on a national safety concern with fear of reprisaltry action?
As stated by others- if you work for the government, you ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SPEAK PUBLICLY. So what to do? Keep silent, and watch the disaster unfold? Should only rich, powerful, private aircraft owners have input into something that affects EVERYONE?
Class E airspace does not work without radar monitoring and full traffic participation-period! It never has, and it never will.
The yanks have 'evolved' their airspace, and it is not something you can just 'transplant'. Dick just doesn't get that.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Identities - who?
Chris Higgins wrote:
Apart from the name-dropping that Dick constantly draws like a loose cannon (which I believe he uses to try and gain credibility), why does he not name his "anonymous" sources - those single engined pilots that get held over water near Hamilton Island, the GA pilots that are supposedly making millions with all those track miles saved, the QANTAS pilots that support NAS ... et cetera.
The sword is two-edged. Like it has been said on this forum before, many people on this forum remain anonymous to protect themselves (there have already been cases of people having their reigns "pulled" for speaking out); it does not detract from their credibility. What does it matter who the contributors are; if they are not in positions of authority, their names won't mean anything to other contributors anyway.
Dick purports to have a raft of supporters. Perhaps he should start his own petition (not unlike SafeSkiesNow earlier this year) to demonstrate to the minister just how much support he has for NAS.
Consider it a challenge.
As for Class E-
Chris, this would be one of the principal concerns about the NAS 2b rollout. I hope you have been made aware of the Christmas eve incident near Launceston involving a 737 and a Tobago - in non-RADAR Class E airspace (involving an RA). There is no proof as to how close the aircraft actually got laterally, but so much as to say the passengers could see the Tobago quite clearly. The Tobago pilot thought he wasn't supposed to talk (NAS 2b training package), so he didn't. He thought the jet would pass him on his right; it passed him on the left.
What was the fallout? Airservices' only transportable RADAR (which in the past had been used for increased surveillance when required - e.g. prolonged RADAR failures or special events) is now cemented firmly in place in Launceston - on a 72 hour recall I believe. This is a band-aid solution that doesn't placate the significant chunks of identical airspace around the country where an incident hasn't occurred yet.
I suggest you have a read of the ATSB report: Christmas Eve incident summary
[edited to add non-RADAR E comments]
It seems that Dick Smith and Mr Caplehorn and Mr Dumsa are able to reveal their full identities; why nobody else?
The sword is two-edged. Like it has been said on this forum before, many people on this forum remain anonymous to protect themselves (there have already been cases of people having their reigns "pulled" for speaking out); it does not detract from their credibility. What does it matter who the contributors are; if they are not in positions of authority, their names won't mean anything to other contributors anyway.
Dick purports to have a raft of supporters. Perhaps he should start his own petition (not unlike SafeSkiesNow earlier this year) to demonstrate to the minister just how much support he has for NAS.
Consider it a challenge.
As for Class E-
Class E airspace does not work without radar monitoring and full traffic participation-period! It never has, and it never will. Class E airspace without radar is merely an extension of an outmoded philosophy of "affordable safety."
What was the fallout? Airservices' only transportable RADAR (which in the past had been used for increased surveillance when required - e.g. prolonged RADAR failures or special events) is now cemented firmly in place in Launceston - on a 72 hour recall I believe. This is a band-aid solution that doesn't placate the significant chunks of identical airspace around the country where an incident hasn't occurred yet.
I suggest you have a read of the ATSB report: Christmas Eve incident summary
[edited to add non-RADAR E comments]
Last edited by Blastoid; 19th Jun 2004 at 09:33.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bear Lake, Canada
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chris HIGGINS
It is good to make your contribution, because the distance helps see the big picture.
Yes I think this is the spirit of the Australian safety culture By my count, and I was writing this anyway, there is nobody left in Australia aviation who has not been attacked. In order, I read of attacks on:
AA managers
AA ATC (who aim aircraft at each other)
BASI
CASA
CSIRO and their Fulton
DOTRS economists
DJ flight crew (who fly at each other)
Qantas and their Head Pilot
I read all the Broome study and I was trynig to ascertain the airlines statements and then I read
That is a worry for a safety culture, and I think its not good for any country. It goes to the heart of safety management and it is painful to say but Australia cannot be getting a good score on this which is not good.
I too keep my head down but I have to say that even though il est en bas de la route, Adrian Dumsa is not me (but now watch for the accusation that I am he because I have spoken).
It is good to make your contribution, because the distance helps see the big picture.
It seems that Dick Smith and Mr Caplehorn and Mr Dumsa are able to reveal their full identities; why nobody else? Is it really in the spirit of the Australian safety culture to be frightened to speak up on a national safety concern with fear of reprisaltry action?
AA managers
AA ATC (who aim aircraft at each other)
BASI
CASA
CSIRO and their Fulton
DOTRS economists
DJ flight crew (who fly at each other)
Qantas and their Head Pilot
I read all the Broome study and I was trynig to ascertain the airlines statements and then I read
It was best summarised by the words of one Chief Pilot who, upon being asked by members of the study team to review Appendix A before publication, said:
It is extremely disappointing to note the remarks of some of the interviewees, who have stated that they are gagged and others who have stated that their respective views can not be related due to other agendas requiring government support
It is extremely disappointing to note the remarks of some of the interviewees, who have stated that they are gagged and others who have stated that their respective views can not be related due to other agendas requiring government support
I too keep my head down but I have to say that even though il est en bas de la route, Adrian Dumsa is not me (but now watch for the accusation that I am he because I have spoken).
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good Morning all!
I appreciate the candor and professionalism of all responses to my recent post.
I can agree with you that Dick has taken a very defensive posture and somewhat of an aggressive stand on NAS. I wasn't sure how his remarks would be received by VOR, when his opening reply referred to alleged defamation of character. I am sincerely thankful that VOR chose to diffuse this situation and move forward on the debate.
I am concerned that Mr Smith has chosen to use the media as a conduit to make personal attacks of his own against controllers, pilots and even the present QF Chief Pilot. I consider a PPrune a form of media.
With all this in mind...I still believe he has some valid points.
1. What the hell is Air Services Australia doing quoting anybody anything in Hawaii, when the airspace in Oz still needs to be fixed?
2. How can the outrageous fees being charged by Air Services Australia be justified, when the service they provide for GA seems to be quite minimal.
3. Who is now charged with regulating and amending the changes in the NAS rollback? Was any study done to reveal the risk of doing that?
4. Why the resulting confusion, leading to higher regulatory charges, lower student starts and general lack of agreement?
5. If Dick Smith is, "not in charge now", who is? Why haven't we heard from him/her?
If I were Dick Smith, I'd be tempted to come off the ropes swinging too! But, somehow, we have to prevent him from doing that by keeping the attacks objective and not too personal. If you make someone angry, they are bound to get upset, go speak to a reporter or hire an attorney. Let's just try and keep the arguments fairly "surgical", right?
I can agree with you that Dick has taken a very defensive posture and somewhat of an aggressive stand on NAS. I wasn't sure how his remarks would be received by VOR, when his opening reply referred to alleged defamation of character. I am sincerely thankful that VOR chose to diffuse this situation and move forward on the debate.
I am concerned that Mr Smith has chosen to use the media as a conduit to make personal attacks of his own against controllers, pilots and even the present QF Chief Pilot. I consider a PPrune a form of media.
With all this in mind...I still believe he has some valid points.
1. What the hell is Air Services Australia doing quoting anybody anything in Hawaii, when the airspace in Oz still needs to be fixed?
2. How can the outrageous fees being charged by Air Services Australia be justified, when the service they provide for GA seems to be quite minimal.
3. Who is now charged with regulating and amending the changes in the NAS rollback? Was any study done to reveal the risk of doing that?
4. Why the resulting confusion, leading to higher regulatory charges, lower student starts and general lack of agreement?
5. If Dick Smith is, "not in charge now", who is? Why haven't we heard from him/her?
If I were Dick Smith, I'd be tempted to come off the ropes swinging too! But, somehow, we have to prevent him from doing that by keeping the attacks objective and not too personal. If you make someone angry, they are bound to get upset, go speak to a reporter or hire an attorney. Let's just try and keep the arguments fairly "surgical", right?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chris- now we are getting somewhere. All this wasted money and effort to change airspace . Ask Dick why he rages against the airspace and you get half-arsed responses about saving money. By his own admission, all he has done is cost the industry money. Why he isn't raging against the charging regime- one can only guess. It might have something to do with him being a supporter of 'business enterprise' in government, user pays etc.
However,
1. AsA is doing the government's will. AsA is a GBE, and required to go out and find revenue. AsA apparently doesn't have a role in 'fixing' airspace- that is a job for CASA, Dotars, the ARG or whoever else Dick nominates on the day. Why he doesn't push for 'world's best practice', just like the states, and let AsA do everything a la the FAA is another anomaly in his theories.
2. AsA has a minimal impact on GA. I am told that the major cost impositions on GA have nothing to do with airways charges. Pre Nov 27 VFRs flew free enroute. Try looking at landing fees from privatised airports, rent on premises, insurance, fuel tax, AsA as a defacto tax etc. Ask Dick about these.
3. Don't know. Does anyone?
4. Confusion? Has to have been a study in 'how not to manage change'.
5. Dick is a puppeteer. Who is in charge is irrelevent ( until the election ).
However,
1. AsA is doing the government's will. AsA is a GBE, and required to go out and find revenue. AsA apparently doesn't have a role in 'fixing' airspace- that is a job for CASA, Dotars, the ARG or whoever else Dick nominates on the day. Why he doesn't push for 'world's best practice', just like the states, and let AsA do everything a la the FAA is another anomaly in his theories.
2. AsA has a minimal impact on GA. I am told that the major cost impositions on GA have nothing to do with airways charges. Pre Nov 27 VFRs flew free enroute. Try looking at landing fees from privatised airports, rent on premises, insurance, fuel tax, AsA as a defacto tax etc. Ask Dick about these.
3. Don't know. Does anyone?
4. Confusion? Has to have been a study in 'how not to manage change'.
5. Dick is a puppeteer. Who is in charge is irrelevent ( until the election ).
VOR said to Dick Smith
I heard it reported that when a VH lightie flies in the US they are treated the aircraft kid gloves. The sooner the aircraft is off their control frequency the better, so little wonder Dick has a different slant on the world, and it ain't reality!!
we understand that much of your enthusiasm for United States practice is based on your personal experiences, and if they are flawed, perhaps your design is flawed?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anonymity
May I offer pprune posters some advise.
Do not drop your anonymity
I am still upset that Dick, I feel unnecesarily, attacked Dr Neil Fulton of the CSIRO because he audited our preliminary report and that our expert panel based some of the later reports methodologies on his published papers. Any concerns Dick had should have been raised with Neil or even ourselves as the owner of the report not the Chairman of the CSIRO.
My position is different I own my companies, can finance any matters arising and have no boss. Please do not follow my lead stay out of harms way.
Ppruners let your facts and arguments speak for themselves that is ample.
Dick and VoR your debate is very worthwhile and I along with many others appreciate the time and effort you are applying to this crucial question.
Mike Caplehorn
Chairman BIA Group
Do not drop your anonymity
I am still upset that Dick, I feel unnecesarily, attacked Dr Neil Fulton of the CSIRO because he audited our preliminary report and that our expert panel based some of the later reports methodologies on his published papers. Any concerns Dick had should have been raised with Neil or even ourselves as the owner of the report not the Chairman of the CSIRO.
My position is different I own my companies, can finance any matters arising and have no boss. Please do not follow my lead stay out of harms way.
Ppruners let your facts and arguments speak for themselves that is ample.
Dick and VoR your debate is very worthwhile and I along with many others appreciate the time and effort you are applying to this crucial question.
Mike Caplehorn
Chairman BIA Group
Chris Higgins
Of course not. But consider
Their respective views can not be related due to other agendas requiring government support. Says it all really. Who allocates landing rights, the government. There should be an independent body that considers the timely approval of landing rights. C'mon Dick, fight for that one.
Is it really in the spirit of the Australian safety culture to be frightened to speak up on a national safety concern with fear of reprisaltry action?
their respective views can not be related due to other agendas requiring government support
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
****zu..
I would suggest that there would be some people at Airservices who may think that the outing of certain documents relating to "$influence" would be in their worst interest....
AirServices should waive the confidentiality clause of Adrian Dumsa's resignation package - the way Dick is attacking AirServices (and everybody else that dares question him) it may be in their better interest.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: AUS
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
May I make an observation?
Following this thread how many of you ATC chaps have made (in some cases H-U-G-E posts) demanding Dick Smith pay attention to your challenge and respond to it?
All pretty much at the same time...
...like he had nothing better to do.
Gee, doesn't that ring a bell with you guys?
Woomera, how about a suggestion to contributors to keep "radio chatter" to a minimum.... Dick has his hands full trying to "arrange clearances" for others on another frequency.
Following this thread how many of you ATC chaps have made (in some cases H-U-G-E posts) demanding Dick Smith pay attention to your challenge and respond to it?
All pretty much at the same time...
...like he had nothing better to do.
Gee, doesn't that ring a bell with you guys?
Woomera, how about a suggestion to contributors to keep "radio chatter" to a minimum.... Dick has his hands full trying to "arrange clearances" for others on another frequency.
Last edited by planespeaker; 20th Jun 2004 at 00:49.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
planespeaker. The purpose of two threads was to facilitate the debate between Dick Smith and Voices of Reason on the main thread, without distraction from a high signal to noise ratio.
Dick Smith and Voices of Reason may choose to debate or respond to issues raised in this thread, or concentrate on responding to issues raised in their debate thread - at their discretion.
One must accept both Dick Smith and Voices of Reason are committing a significant amount of time to the debate thread. It is completely understandable if they do not respond to every issue raised in this thread.
Woomera is here to moderate - not arbitrate or adjudicate. PPRuNe can neither endorse nor change NAS, however we are aware the debate thread is being closely followed by many who are in a position to influence NAS and Australian airspace design.
Woomera
Dick Smith and Voices of Reason may choose to debate or respond to issues raised in this thread, or concentrate on responding to issues raised in their debate thread - at their discretion.
One must accept both Dick Smith and Voices of Reason are committing a significant amount of time to the debate thread. It is completely understandable if they do not respond to every issue raised in this thread.
Woomera is here to moderate - not arbitrate or adjudicate. PPRuNe can neither endorse nor change NAS, however we are aware the debate thread is being closely followed by many who are in a position to influence NAS and Australian airspace design.
Woomera